New homeless shelters and impacted schools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should attend the closest school or subsidized daycare. Where is this bus coming from? Unless they are special needs, there is no 'bus' in DC. The article I read about the homeless women in MD--they were taking the bus with their kids to get to the old school and spending 4 hours a day on that. Ludicrous. The kids need to go to nearest school or the city provide a bus, so these moms or dads can get job training or start a job and start putting away money. What are the conditions for the parents by the way? What are the expectations for how they spend their day?

Before McKinney-Vento, there were often "schools" in the shelters. They weren't grade-specific, weren't desirable teaching posts, and generally had low expectations. It wasn't a good situation. So the idea that if a family became homeless, the children could continue to attend their school and receive transportation assistance was introduced. As was the ability of families to enroll in the closest school, immediately, even if they didn't have the necessary documentation.

It's not a thing that was put in place to inconvenience you. It was done to offer stability to kids without any.

As for the buses, the services do have to be requested. Sometimes folks ask. Sometimes not.

If my tax dollars pay for these improved shelters, which they will, the above should not be a choice. The children should be in the local, walkable school or a city provided bus should pick them up. There should be no 'asking'. Are these subsidized permanent apartments or a transition step to get people to permanent housing? If the latter, a wraparound plan should be provided not 'asked for'. And during the day, the parent should by requirement take classes, work, or get counseling while their child is in school or daycare--as a requirement, and as a good example to their children. Just like I do every day while my child is so I can earn the $ to pay for this. I am seeing holes already in the utility of these mini-shelters.

The current shelters being discussed (there are many, many other shelters in this city which no one gave a rats ass about) are 120 day transitional shelters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know what the plan is on accommodating new students who are living in the new homeless shelters (supposedly as of 2018) at their in-bound school? Do all the kids from each homeless shelter go to their in-bound school or are they divided up and distributed amongst various schools in their ward or close in proximity?

Seems like Bowser hasn't really thought through much of her "plan".

So because you don't know the answers Bowser hasn't thought it through?

[Anonymous]

The information is not that hard to find:

http://dcps.dc.gov/service/homeless-children-and-youth-services-dcps

http://osse.dc.gov/service/education-homeless-children-and-youth-program

The parent has a choice. The systems are in place to manage this. There are already homeless students in your school, you just don't know about it, and you shouldn't, as they have a right to privacy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know what the plan is on accommodating new students who are living in the new homeless shelters (supposedly as of 2018) at their in-bound school? Do all the kids from each homeless shelter go to their in-bound school or are they divided up and distributed amongst various schools in their ward or close in proximity?

Seems like Bowser hasn't really thought through much of her "plan".

So because you don't know the answers Bowser hasn't thought it through?

+1. OP is an asshat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are already a number of threads on this topic. Some start in the political discussion forum, some in off-topic, and some here, because schools. It's the same conversation over and over again.

McKinney-Vento says that students have a right to attend the school assigned to their last address or the school assigned to their current address, whether that's a shelter, a temporary apartment, or some other address.

If a shelter is built within the boundary for Janney, the school-age children living in the shelter have a right to attend Janney. If their parents would prefer that they continue to attend the school they used to live in bounds for, they have a right to attend that school and DC must provide transportation to that school.

Bowser didn't have to think through this. Reagan signed it into law in 1987.

Anyway, maybe read some of the other threads before you get in a tizzy.

Which is a pure hypothetical, because there's no way that a shelter will be built within the Janney district. Mary Cheh and the same people who protected Janney's interests on the school boundary advisory committee will see to that. Absolutely.

I believe the proposed shelter site on Idaho would be in Eaton's zone, not Janney's:

http://planning.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/Eaton.pdf

Yes, it is Eaton and Hardy. Eaton is only 45% IB, so they have capacity (at the expense of future OOB slots).

[Anonymous]

There is a homeless shelter right smack in the middle of Tenleytown on Wisconsin, by the way. It isn't run by the city though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are already a number of threads on this topic. Some start in the political discussion forum, some in off-topic, and some here, because schools. It's the same conversation over and over again.

McKinney-Vento says that students have a right to attend the school assigned to their last address or the school assigned to their current address, whether that's a shelter, a temporary apartment, or some other address.

If a shelter is built within the boundary for Janney, the school-age children living in the shelter have a right to attend Janney. If their parents would prefer that they continue to attend the school they used to live in bounds for, they have a right to attend that school and DC must provide transportation to that school.

Bowser didn't have to think through this. Reagan signed it into law in 1987.

Anyway, maybe read some of the other threads before you get in a tizzy.

Which is a pure hypothetical, because there's no way that a shelter will be built within the Janney district. Mary Cheh and the same people who protected Janney's interests on the school boundary advisory committee will see to that. Absolutely.

I believe the proposed shelter site on Idaho would be in Eaton's zone, not Janney's:

http://planning.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/Eaton.pdf

I'm guessing that the kind people at Stoddert no longer have concerns about the number of bathrooms and bath tubs in the shelter, or security around the shelter. I predict that their humanitarian concerns for the homeless have evaporated thanks to Cheh moving the shelter out of their boundary. Funny how that happened.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is a homeless shelter right smack in the middle of Tenleytown on Wisconsin, by the way. It isn't run by the city though.

Is this linked to the spike in crime in tenleytown?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should attend the closest school or subsidized daycare. Where is this bus coming from? Unless they are special needs, there is no 'bus' in DC. The article I read about the homeless women in MD--they were taking the bus with their kids to get to the old school and spending 4 hours a day on that. Ludicrous. The kids need to go to nearest school or the city provide a bus, so these moms or dads can get job training or start a job and start putting away money. What are the conditions for the parents by the way? What are the expectations for how they spend their day?

Before McKinney-Vento, there were often "schools" in the shelters. They weren't grade-specific, weren't desirable teaching posts, and generally had low expectations. It wasn't a good situation. So the idea that if a family became homeless, the children could continue to attend their school and receive transportation assistance was introduced. As was the ability of families to enroll in the closest school, immediately, even if they didn't have the necessary documentation.

It's not a thing that was put in place to inconvenience you. It was done to offer stability to kids without any.

As for the buses, the services do have to be requested. Sometimes folks ask. Sometimes not.

If my tax dollars pay for these improved shelters, which they will, the above should not be a choice. The children should be in the local, walkable school or a city provided bus should pick them up. There should be no 'asking'. Are these subsidized permanent apartments or a transition step to get people to permanent housing? If the latter, a wraparound plan should be provided not 'asked for'. And during the day, the parent should by requirement take classes, work, or get counseling while their child is in school or daycare--as a requirement, and as a good example to their children. Just like I do every day while my child is so I can earn the $ to pay for this. I am seeing holes already in the utility of these mini-shelters.

The current shelters being discussed (there are many, many other shelters in this city which no one gave a rats ass about) are 120 day transitional shelters.

I wouldnt count on that. Does the city really think it can turn around addiction, lack of education, abuse, high cost of living and unemployment in 90 days. These are going to be much more long term.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should attend the closest school or subsidized daycare. Where is this bus coming from? Unless they are special needs, there is no 'bus' in DC. The article I read about the homeless women in MD--they were taking the bus with their kids to get to the old school and spending 4 hours a day on that. Ludicrous. The kids need to go to nearest school or the city provide a bus, so these moms or dads can get job training or start a job and start putting away money. What are the conditions for the parents by the way? What are the expectations for how they spend their day?

Before McKinney-Vento, there were often "schools" in the shelters. They weren't grade-specific, weren't desirable teaching posts, and generally had low expectations. It wasn't a good situation. So the idea that if a family became homeless, the children could continue to attend their school and receive transportation assistance was introduced. As was the ability of families to enroll in the closest school, immediately, even if they didn't have the necessary documentation.

It's not a thing that was put in place to inconvenience you. It was done to offer stability to kids without any.

As for the buses, the services do have to be requested. Sometimes folks ask. Sometimes not.

If my tax dollars pay for these improved shelters, which they will, the above should not be a choice. The children should be in the local, walkable school or a city provided bus should pick them up. There should be no 'asking'. Are these subsidized permanent apartments or a transition step to get people to permanent housing? If the latter, a wraparound plan should be provided not 'asked for'. And during the day, the parent should by requirement take classes, work, or get counseling while their child is in school or daycare--as a requirement, and as a good example to their children. Just like I do every day while my child is so I can earn the $ to pay for this. I am seeing holes already in the utility of these mini-shelters.

The current shelters being discussed (there are many, many other shelters in this city which no one gave a rats ass about) are 120 day transitional shelters.

I wouldnt count on that. Does the city really think it can turn around addiction, lack of education, abuse, high cost of living and unemployment in 90 days. These are going to be much more long term.

I think it is just hoping to find more permanent housing during that time. But yes, even that will be a challenge. Part of the issues with DC General and the use of hotel rooms, etc. was that the city was not meeting that goal fast enough to meet demand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are already a number of threads on this topic. Some start in the political discussion forum, some in off-topic, and some here, because schools. It's the same conversation over and over again.

McKinney-Vento says that students have a right to attend the school assigned to their last address or the school assigned to their current address, whether that's a shelter, a temporary apartment, or some other address.

If a shelter is built within the boundary for Janney, the school-age children living in the shelter have a right to attend Janney. If their parents would prefer that they continue to attend the school they used to live in bounds for, they have a right to attend that school and DC must provide transportation to that school.

Bowser didn't have to think through this. Reagan signed it into law in 1987.

Anyway, maybe read some of the other threads before you get in a tizzy.

Which is a pure hypothetical, because there's no way that a shelter will be built within the Janney district. Mary Cheh and the same people who protected Janney's interests on the school boundary advisory committee will see to that. Absolutely.

I believe the proposed shelter site on Idaho would be in Eaton's zone, not Janney's:

http://planning.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/Eaton.pdf

I'm guessing that the kind people at Stoddert no longer have concerns about the number of bathrooms and bath tubs in the shelter, or security around the shelter. I predict that their humanitarian concerns for the homeless have evaporated thanks to Cheh moving the shelter out of their boundary. Funny how that happened.

I think that's overly cynical. My kids are past Stoddert age, but we live in the neighborhood and attended the meetings on the shelter. Most of the opposition came from people living on the other side of Wisconsin (Observatory Circle area). There was little if any opposition from Glover Parkers. Many of us were eager to help, and most parents at Stoddert asked reasonable questions about overcrowding and the availability of wraparound services--things the city seemed not to have taken into account.

Also, a number of us in Glover Park and with children at Stoddert have been active on this issue for a long time (personally, not professionally) and have supported private bathrooms from the beginning, when it was debated before Council and long before the mayor released her plan. It's not OK to have one bathtub for 10 families--most of whom have infants or toddlers. It's not OK to send young children into bathrooms shared with unrelated teenagers. It's not OK to ask preteens and teenagers who are already stigmatized by homelessness to wait in line for the shower in the morning; the lack of easy access to daily showers and clean clothes has been proven to lead to increased truancy among children and teens whose families are homeless.

How active have you been on this issue, PP?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are already a number of threads on this topic. Some start in the political discussion forum, some in off-topic, and some here, because schools. It's the same conversation over and over again.

McKinney-Vento says that students have a right to attend the school assigned to their last address or the school assigned to their current address, whether that's a shelter, a temporary apartment, or some other address.

If a shelter is built within the boundary for Janney, the school-age children living in the shelter have a right to attend Janney. If their parents would prefer that they continue to attend the school they used to live in bounds for, they have a right to attend that school and DC must provide transportation to that school.

Bowser didn't have to think through this. Reagan signed it into law in 1987.

Anyway, maybe read some of the other threads before you get in a tizzy.

Which is a pure hypothetical, because there's no way that a shelter will be built within the Janney district. Mary Cheh and the same people who protected Janney's interests on the school boundary advisory committee will see to that. Absolutely.

I believe the proposed shelter site on Idaho would be in Eaton's zone, not Janney's:

http://planning.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/Eaton.pdf

I'm guessing that the kind people at Stoddert no longer have concerns about the number of bathrooms and bath tubs in the shelter, or security around the shelter. I predict that their humanitarian concerns for the homeless have evaporated thanks to Cheh moving the shelter out of their boundary. Funny how that happened.

I think that's overly cynical. My kids are past Stoddert age, but we live in the neighborhood and attended the meetings on the shelter. Most of the opposition came from people living on the other side of Wisconsin (Observatory Circle area). There was little if any opposition from Glover Parkers. Many of us were eager to help, and most parents at Stoddert asked reasonable questions about overcrowding and the availability of wraparound services--things the city seemed not to have taken into account.

Also, a number of us in Glover Park and with children at Stoddert have been active on this issue for a long time (personally, not professionally) and have supported private bathrooms from the beginning, when it was debated before Council and long before the mayor released her plan. It's not OK to have one bathtub for 10 families--most of whom have infants or toddlers. It's not OK to send young children into bathrooms shared with unrelated teenagers. It's not OK to ask preteens and teenagers who are already stigmatized by homelessness to wait in line for the shower in the morning; the lack of easy access to daily showers and clean clothes has been proven to lead to increased truancy among children and teens whose families are homeless.

How active have you been on this issue, PP?

Continuing....

I should also note that not everyone from Observatory Circle opposed the shelters for the reasons you apparently think. It's actually a reasonable objection that a lot zoned for single family homes not unilaterally be overbuilt instead to house 38 families, whether formerly homeless families or not. (I suspect you might object if this happened to you.) It's also reasonable to think that the financials for this project were over-the-top wrong, and that many more families could be helped with the savings.

There were definitely a few people who opposed this for more nefarious reasons, but I don't think they were the majority, at least for the proposed Ward 3 shelter. And if you've seen some of the Cleveland Park listserv comments opposing the ward 3 shelter in the proposed new location, you'll realize that the opposition in Observatory Circle, sadly, looks pretty tame in comparison. Here's just one of those comments:

"I would feel weary of knowing that there may be homeless people walking into these gardens where we work so hard to grow our vegetables and flowers."

[Anonymous]

The financials of the Bowser's plan were laughable and amateurish. Bowser's team was counting on hysterical and anti-inclusion backlashes from the identified communities especially in NW, in order to switch the stage from math to a political duel (NW versus SE). Nothing of this happened, communities, ANC Commissioners and Council members all stayed very cool, defending the inclusion principle but rejecting the financial projections and the plan of building public facilities on private leased properties (with leasing prices agreed at several orders of magnitude above market prices...especially for Ward 3).

Bowser's plan sucked, would have generated a 30+ year damage to the District finances, and a misuse of public resources to return political favors.

Voters are not impressed with Bowsers' hysterical yells at Mendelson , while trying to transfer on the Council the responsibility of any delays in the closing of DC General.

She and her team are revealing themselves for what they are..... Citizens, communities, ANC members and Council members have given them a lesson of civil sense, integration and solidarity values, transparency and good governance principles.

Same is happening in this forums. A handful of contributors trying to light a fire, with community members replying with facts and solid arguments about the inadequacy of the plan (thanks Glover Park poster with kids above Stoddert age).

[Anonymous]

Your neighborhood school doesn't necessitate that your homeless shelter would be in the boundaries. You can be in a homeless shelter in Ward 7 and your school boundary is a school located in Ward 6. With transportation free...neighborhood schools are not a necessity for those school-age children who accessible to transportation. The NIMBY attitude will not raise its ugly head. Go try though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The financials of the Bowser's plan were laughable and amateurish. Bowser's team was counting on hysterical and anti-inclusion backlashes from the identified communities especially in NW, in order to switch the stage from math to a political duel (NW versus SE). Nothing of this happened, communities, ANC Commissioners and Council members all stayed very cool, defending the inclusion principle but rejecting the financial projections and the plan of building public facilities on private leased properties (with leasing prices agreed at several orders of magnitude above market prices...especially for Ward 3).

Bowser's plan sucked, would have generated a 30+ year damage to the District finances, and a misuse of public resources to return political favors.

Voters are not impressed with Bowsers' hysterical yells at Mendelson , while trying to transfer on the Council the responsibility of any delays in the closing of DC General.

She and her team are revealing themselves for what they are..... Citizens, communities, ANC members and Council members have given them a lesson of civil sense, integration and solidarity values, transparency and good governance principles.

Same is happening in this forums. A handful of contributors trying to light a fire, with community members replying with facts and solid arguments about the inadequacy of the plan (thanks Glover Park poster with kids above Stoddert age).

Wow. One of the most intelligent comments I've read on DCUM in months if not years.

Thank you.